and the development of improved replacements - history and prospects. Recommended reading.

“One of the missing pieces at the time was an efficient and
lightweight energy-storage device that could instantaneously produce
high levels of power. Another gap in technology was a computer that
could manage multiple sources of energy efficiently and automatically.
It would have to deliver high power to the wheels when required and
also, when the car needed to be slowed, to transform the kinetic
energy of motion into electricity for charging the battery so this
energy could later be reused. Another element that was lacking was a
transmission system that could efficiently handle more than one power
plant.”
—
“For example, a hybrid car we constructed in 1997 named "Coulomb" (a
converted Mercury Sable sedan) has an engine with a displacement of
only 660 cubic centimeters, something one finds more typically
powering a modest-size motorcycle. Yet that diminutive engine can
produce 36 kilowatts, which is more than sufficient for sustained hill
climbing. Coulomb also contains an electric motor capable of putting
out 75 kilowatts peak power, which allows the car to accelerate from a
standstill to 60 miles per hour in only 9 seconds when used in
conjunction with its gasoline engine. With the car's 18-kilowatt-hour
pack of metal-hydride batteries, the motor can carry the car for 60
miles in all-electric mode.

“Advanced lithium-ion batteries now becoming available for automotive
use are smaller and lighter than the metal-hydride cells we have so
far employed, which will allow for lighter vehicles with the same
electric range or ones that can go even farther before they begin to
use gasoline. At the moment, the main roadblocks to lithium-ion cells
are higher cost, reduced longevity and concerns about safety, but some
battery makers claim to have solved these issues with their newest
designs. I look forward to testing some of the latest lithium-ion
batteries in one of the plug-in hybrids that I am now building with my
students. I fully expect that lithium-ion cells of one variety or
another will eventually replace metal-hydride batteries in hybrid
cars, offering a two- to threefold increase in energy storage for a
pack of a given weight, along with a greater ability to absorb energy
quickly during regenerative braking and, perhaps, with adequate
durability to last for 15 years and 150,000 miles.

“Charging time for the batteries in a plug-in hybrid is not nearly as
much of an issue as it is for a purely electric car, because the
engine can always provide propulsion. Thus the batteries can be
charged relatively slowly, which can be done quite efficiently from
nothing more elaborate than an ordinary household outlet. What is
more, because the power requirements for slow charging are quite
modest, the electricity doesn't necessarily have to come from the
electric grid - it can also be derived from rooftop photovoltaic
panels or from a small wind turbine.”
—
“As plug-in hybrids are manufactured in increasing numbers, they will
be paving the way to a society that bases its energy needs on
renewable sources. The various impediments to designing such vehicles
have been overcome one by one over the past three decades. The only
element clearly needing further progress is energy storage in
electrochemical batteries, and there is ample evidence that these
devices can soon be made in a way that satisfies the needs of the
automotive market. So I am confident that plug-in hybrids will allow
all of us to retain and indeed improve our comfortable lifestyles at a
lower cost and in a less disruptive manner than any transportation
alternative envisioned today.”

“[...] Two 100m trenches, almost as deep as a man is tall, stretch away
up the hill [...]”
—
“In Switzerland every third new building is equipped with a heat pump.
In Sweden seven out of ten new builds rely on this technology. In
Germany, too, it is catching on. Because the installation makes a huge
mess inside and around a house, the technology is most obviously
applicable to new construction. My stone buildings are centuries old;
but I have decided to brave the cost and inconvenience. If the system
works in the large holiday cottage beside our house, we will adopt it
throughout.”
—
“Other heat-pump systems use the air, not the soil, for heat
collection. Or you can take it from rivers or wells. And for
ground-source you can go vertically down, putting pipes into bore
holes if you are short of space. But I have chosen to use my field.”

Ten years of Tony Bliar and Brown the Clown, how much longer before
the UK government takes energy seriously?

“Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark
disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary
energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8 %). That is, all
energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels,
etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The
colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three
years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud
coverage available from weather satellites.”

Location

Desert

Desert Sizein km2

W m-2

Area requiredin km2

Africa

Sahara

9,064,960

260

144,231

Australia

Great Sandy

388,500

265

141,509

China

Takla Makan

271,950

210

178,571

Middle-East

Arabian

2,589,910

270

138,889

South America

Atacama

139,860

275

136,364

U.S.A

Great Basin

492,100

220

170,455

Much photovoltiacs
[PV] is now at over twice this conversion efficiency rate.

Nuclear power
is reckoned to be capable of providing energy for ever, with vastly lower
risk rates even than PV production.

Reasonable housing and equipment standards could save at least 15% of
current energy usage with no reduction in standards of living.

Why are George Bush and Tony Bliar tolerating the present nuisance of
the Middle East dictators, the filthy fossil fuels industry and the vast
corporations running the filth machine?

The document reproduced below encapsulates much of the dream behind the EU
reductions of CO2 (this document is politically important!). However, most methanol/ethanol is currently formed using fossil fuels.

And the energy input to enable most methanol/ethanol
production from
plant starches and sugars is close to the energy generated (output),
thus making this production dubiously viable. this could change radically
if cellulosic methanol comes on stream.

Meanwhile, the amount of ethanol produced in Brazil
annually is equivalent to less than the quantity of oil used by the world
in a single day.

There are also anaerobic bateria that can produce methane
from methanol (far the most of natural methane production is by such bacteria,
although not necessarily by this route). Methane is a high problem greenhouse
gas. I do not know whether this is serious issue as yet. In general,
methanol is much less of a spill problem than liquid
fossil fuels.

The European Commission today proposed new standards for transport
fuels that will reduce their contribution to climate change and air
pollution, including through greater use of biofuels. The changes underscore
the Commission's commitment to ensuring that the EU combats climate
change and air pollution effectively. The proposed standards will not
only make the fuels themselves 'cleaner' but will also allow the introduction
of vehicles and machinery that pollute less. A key measure foreseen
is that, to encourage the development of lower-carbon fuels and biofuels,
suppliers will have to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by
the production, transport and use of their fuels by 10% between 2011
and 2020. This will cut emissions by 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
by 2020 - equivalent to the total combined emissions of Spain and Sweden
today. A new petrol blend will be established allowing higher content
of the biofuel ethanol, and sulphur levels in diesel and gasoil will
be cut to reduce emissions of dangerous dust particles.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "This is one of the
most important measures in the series of new initiatives the Commission
needs to take to step up the fight against global climate change. It
is a concrete test of our political commitment to leadership on climate
policy and our capacity to translate political priorities into concrete
measures. It will further underpin Europe's shift towards the low-carbon
economy that is essential if we are to prevent climate change from reaching
dangerous proportions. These proposals will also help achieve a significant
reduction in the noxious pollutants from transport that can harm our
citizens' health, as well as opening the way for a major expansion in
the use of biofuels, especially second generation biofuels."

What the new standards will achieve

A reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of 500 million tonnes
of carbon dioxide by 2020

An improvement in the quality of transport fuels and promotion of
"second generation" biofuels that will bring bigger emission
savings

Better public health through a reduction in noxious pollutants, in
particular due to lower sulphur content of diesel.

Importance of fuel quality specifications

The 1998 fuel quality directive[1] sets common EU
specifications for petrol, diesel and gasoil used in road vehicles,
inland waterway barges and non-road mobile machinery such as locomotives,
earth moving machinery and tractors. Its aim is to protect human health
and the environment and ensure a single market in these fuels. The Commission's
proposal to revise the directive reflects developments in fuel and engine
technology, the growing importance of biofuels and the need both to
meet the air quality goals set out in the 2005 Thematic Strategy on
Air Pollution (see IP/05/1170) and to further reduce the greenhouse
gas emissions that are causing climate change.

Proposed changes

The revised directive will introduce an obligation for fuel suppliers
to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that their fuels cause over their
life-cycle, ie when they are refined, transported and used. From 2011,
suppliers will have to reduce emissions per unit of energy by 1% a year
from 2010 levels. This will result in a 10% cut by 2020.

This obligation will promote the further development of low-carbon
fuels and other measures to reduce emissions from the fuel production
chain, and will help ensure that the fuel sector contributes to achieving
the EU's greenhouse gas reduction goals.

To enable a higher volume of biofuels to be used in petrol, a separate
petrol blend will be established with a higher permitted content of
oxygen-containing additives (so-called oxygenates), including up to
10% ethanol. The different petrol blends will be clearly marked to avoid
fuelling vehicles with incompatible fuel. To compensate for an increase
in emissions of polluting vapours that will result from greater use
of ethanol, the Commission will put forward a proposal for the mandatory
introduction of vapour recovery equipment at filling stations later
this year. These vapours, known as volatile organic compounds, contribute
to the formation of ground-level ozone pollution, which can cause premature
death in people with breathing difficulties or heart problems.

From 1 January 2009 all diesel fuel marketed will have to have
an ultra-low sulphur content (no more than 10 parts per million). This
will cut pollutant emissions, primarily of dust particles ('particulate
matter'), the air pollutant most dangerous for human health. This sulphur
reduction will in particular facilitate the introduction of new pollution-control
equipment such as particle filters on diesel vehicles. From the same
date, the maximum permitted content of another dangerous substance in
diesel, poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), will be reduced by one-third.
This may reduce emissions not only of PAHs, some of which may cause
cancer, but also of particulate matter.

The permitted sulphur content of gasoil for use by non-road machinery
and inland waterway barges will also be substantially cut. This too
will reduce emissions of particulate matter and allow the introduction
of more advanced engines and emission control equipment.

The costs of the different elements have been assessed and, overall,
the changes proposed are justified on a cost-benefit analysis.

But they are being promoted, subsidised and even demanded by the EUSSR. Subsidies are
mostly put in place because of pressures by corporate lobbies.

“- Not all biofuels perform equally well. Some are more likely to
worsen the state of the environment, rather then making any meaningful
contribution. Many environmental experts believe that only the best
performing biofuels, identified through a life-cycle analysis which
covers the entire production process from seed to tank, should be
eligible for public support. Such a life-cycle analysis should also
consider non-climatic environmental impacts such as those on soil,
biodiversity and water. The revised Fuel Quality Directive could, if
designed well, play an important role in this respect

“- The Biofuels Directive sets 'reference values' of a 2% market share
for biofuels in 2005 and 5.75% in 2010. The 2005 target of 2% biofuels
was not achieved. With the objectives set by Member States, the share
of biofuels would have attained, at most, only 1.4%. The Commission
has launched infringement proceedings in seven cases where Member
States adopted low targets without due justification

“- The expansion of crops such as palm oil, soy and sugar cane at the
expense of natural habitats such as rainforest, is already a primary
driver of global biodiversity decline. Palm oil is thought to be
responsible for the loss of 1.2m ha of rainforest in Malaysia and 2m
ha in Indonesia. Further demand following a growing international
bioenergy market can only increase this pressure.

“- Biofuels are often referred to as 'carbon neutral'. They are not. In
reality, they release greenhouse gases throughout their production
cycle. Indeed, the emissions savings on offer are highly variable and
can be very small, or even negative, depending how they are grown and
processed. The GHG savings from biofuels risk being lost if their
production causes the loss of high carbon land-uses. Between 10 and
30% of global GHG emissions are already due to land-use change. This
is principally as a result of tropical deforestation, but grasslands
also represent an important 'carbon sink'. ”

“A new road fuel made from wood chips and straw will be launched in
Europe later this year from a pilot plant developed by Shell and
Choren Industries, the German biofuel company.

“The synthetic diesel, made using a novel biomass-to-liquids (BTL)
process, will shift the biodiesel industry into a higher gear by using
waste plant material instead of valuable food crops.

“The pilot plant, near Freiberg, will produce 15,000 tonnes per year of
synthetic diesel, which Choren has dubbed Sunfuel. Construction of a
much bigger plant in Schleswig-Holstein, costing €500 million (£336
million) and capable of producing 200,000 tonnes of BTL, will begin
next year in an effort to quickly bring the product up to commercial
scale.”

using carbon trading to ease the third world into efficient and clean energy usage

“Carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol, termed the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), can provide a bridge, making the rich bear the brunt of
targets to cut emissions but letting them cut costs by paying poor
countries to make the reductions.

“ "For me the most important advantage of a carbon trading scheme is
generating financial flows to developing countries, and we see the
beginning of this with the CDM," said Nick Stern, chief British government
economist and author of a major report published in October on the
economics of climate change.” [Quoted from planetark.org]

Meanwhile, even Norway is starting to look at clean nuclear power.

“Norwegian energy authorities have commissioned a study on the prospects
for exploiting Norway's relatively large reserves of thorium, a naturally
occurring radioactive metal, in energy production.” [Quoted from planetark.org]

“As far as usable fuel is concerned, what we have managed to do is trade
seven moles of methane for twenty moles of hydrogen. Seven moles of carbon
dioxide have also been produced, exactly as many as would have been
produced had we simply used the methane itself as fuel. The seven moles of
methane that we used up, however, would have been worth 1435 kilocalories
of energy if used directly, while the twenty moles of hydrogen we have
produced in exchange for all our trouble are only worth 1320 kilocalories.
So for the same amount of carbon dioxide released, less useful energy has
been produced.

“The situation is much worse than this, however, because before the
hydrogen can be transported anywhere, it needs to be either compressed or
liquefied. To liquefy it, it must be refrigerated down to a temperature of
20 K (20 degrees above absolute zero, or -253 degrees Celsius). At these
temperatures, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics make refrigerators
extremely inefficient. As a result, about 40 percent of the energy in the
hydrogen must be spent to liquefy it. This reduces the actual net energy
content of our product fuel to 792 kilocalories. In addition, because it
is a cryogenic liquid, still more energy could be expected to be lost as
the hydrogen boils away during transport and storage.” [Quoted from
thenewatlantis.com]

“As for the environmental impact, well, where do we begin? As an
oxygenate, ethanol increases the level of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere
and thus causes smog. The scientific literature is also divided about
whether the energy inputs required to produce ethanol actually exceed its
energy output. It takes fertilizer to grow the corn, and fuel to ship and
process it, and so forth. Even the most optimistic estimate says ethanol's
net energy output is a marginal improvement of only 1.3 to one. For
purposes of comparison, energy outputs from gasoline exceed inputs by an
estimated 10 to one.

“And because corn-based ethanol is less efficient than ordinary gasoline,
using it to fuel cars means you need more gas to drive the same number of
miles. This is not exactly a route to "independence" from Mideast,
Venezuelan or any other tainted source of oil. Ethanol also cannot be
shipped using existing pipelines (being alcohol, it eats the seals), so it
must be trucked or sent by barge or train to its thousand-and-one
destinations, at least until separate pipelines are built.

“Even some environmentalists cry foul. Steve Sanderson, president of the
Wildlife Conservation Society, tells us that intensive, subsidized sugar
farming in Brazil--where the use of ethanol is most widespread--has
displaced small tenant farmers, many of whom have taken to cutting down
and farming land in the Amazon rain forest.” [Quoted from
opinionjournal.com]

The comments on nuclear power are, as usual, misleading to the point
of misinformation.

But more to the point, I can see no reason to use the nuclear power indirectly.
A nuclear power generator can be set up to provide gas and oil substitutes more directly than this. This
looks, on the surface, wasteful and even impractical in view of the pollution and water problems of the location.

So, is this just a pork project in disguise?

“At first blush it seems like a pretty incongruous idea - to plunk a
honking big nuclear reactor in the very heart of Alberta's oil patch, to
help steam the raw bitumen from the thick tar sands.

“But as of this week, there are two serious oilsands players - Husky Energy
Inc. and Total SA of France - who are publicly mulling the nuclear option.
As well, four others, according to the biggest proponent of the plan, are
quietly thinking about it.

“Couple that with the thoughts of ex-premier Ralph Klein, whose parting
gift was to suggest the nuclear notion had at least to be considered, and
you have the makings of a veritable tipping point.

“Oil execs are no dummies. They have tough-minded shareholders and
inquiring boards of directors to deal with, so they don't just toss out
ideas like this willy-nilly. At the same time, the timing of these
announcements and their tone (Husky CEO John Lau went out of his way to
note the political reticence) have to be taken into account.” [Quoted from
cbc.ca]